Why would either of those invalidate her opinions on the show?

Like I said to Punkrock, the points about Charlie are good to know and if the show is coming closer to what he was really like, then I get it. I still FF or multitask through his scenes because he makes my skin crawl.

On their own, they were fine, but to me, they represented an impotent frat boy attitude among the showrunners who were determined to take away from the primary relationship all along. With a limited number of episodes in each season, they were an annoying enough distraction and attempt at humor in season 1. Bringing…

Lt. Foster- the English officer Dougal gutted. He was the one from season 1 who brought Claire and Dougal to the English garrison.

I meant the show's portrayal of Creepy Old Man Charlie

If that is actually what they were trying to do, then I strongly disagree with the choice. Charlie is unbearably icky. If he's supposed to "personify" the cause in his character, wouldn't they have to make him in some way appealing to analogize to supporters finding appeal in the cause? I thought Sandringham was a…

Ah, I see- yes, I suspect you mean Rupert. But you're right- we don't see all those deaths.

If the show's portrayal is more historically accurate, that's good to know- thanks!

But I mean these people around him right now. From the books, I got "immature and pompous" but otherwise charming enough to drum up support. I never read him as creepy and pathetic (and do viewers realize he's supposed to be young? Because I have to keep reminding myself of that- this guy comes off as a 50-something…

Angus was only in book 1 at Leoch if I recall correctly. Or did he come with Colum when he meets with Jamie towards the end of DIA? Regardless, I don't think he is involved in the fighting or dies in the books

Putting aside yet more bad dialogue, trembly Claire voice, and a rather ridiculous plot they've created for Dougal, this was probably the least annoying episode yet this season. So….kudos? Still kind of oddly boring for a battle episode, but at least the plot was moving forward without too many subplots dreamed up. …

I don't have to do more than scroll past Hallmark (or Lifetime? Maybe this is more of a Lifetime show?) to know the silly, melodramatic slop that is Ronlander belongs there. And yes, it is absolutely intended as an insult to the show- glad you managed to catch that.

How do you come to that conclusion, aside from in a sad effort at biting wit?

When I have hoped for Outlander to get cancelled, it is so someone better can start over!

Sounds like it is wise to stay away from their social media too- I heard something about fans who want Sam and Caitriona to be a couple (so they can feel like they are dating them vicariously? Who knows) picking fights with William Shatner about it or something. This fandom is cray cray.

I don't usually follow them either but a cover of one of the bigger magazines, on which they are tangled up with each other and some sheets, was making the rounds earlier this year. Completely misleading, I suspect intentionally so. Wonder how many new viewers they lost over the course of the first few episodes when…

Can they hire Joss to write for Outlander?

Let me clarify- I don't take issue with rapes being portrayed and dealt with as a subject matter on TV; my snark is directed at all the promos that essentially promised lots of Jamie & Claire steaminess to rope in new viewers, and the show runners have delivered a bunch of rapes in lieu of that.

I'll fault the show for making up a new dramatic thing having happened to Claire so it can spend a bunch of its limited remaining time showing off her PTSD.

Are you replying to yourself or to someone else?